BTW, for all you people reading Ultimate Spider-Man because it's closer to what you feel Spider-Man should be than the main books, how do you feel about Aunt May knowing his id?  That's the case now, right?

Not being snarky, just genuinally curious.

Dave Phelps wrote: I would have been perfectly content had they not killed off Aunt May or had they not married Peter and MJ, but once they had done it, I thought reversing it was/is far more untrue to the "core concept" as I saw it than doing it in the first place.

No surprise to you, I'm sure, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried.

Yeah, I've got a problem with the attitude of "I'll be dead by that time, so it won't matter to me!"  We've had this discussion ad nauseam, but "aging" and "growing" mainstream superheroes aimed at an all-ages audience is just plain wrong. Worse than that, it's incredibly selfish to me. No matter how fast or slow you do it, it's being done to satisfy a reader/writer's desire to make said character's life more relevant to them; "I like reading about a Peter Parker who's having marriage problems because that's what I have!" "I like reading about a Peter Parker who's a 30-something because that's me!"  Create another title, explore an aged, married, teacher Peter Parker in a What If... world, write a mini-series, or here's an idea; create your own 30-something school teacher married to the hottest babe in your universe.  But to make that the status quo in the most high profile of all Spider-Man books is a huge, massive mistake.

QUOTE: No surprise to you, I'm sure, but I couldn't disagree with you more strongly if I tried.

Naturally.  Bound to happen when you agree that changes to the "core concept" shouldn't occur but can't agree on what said "core concept" is...

I tend to agree with some of what Glenn G. said above about Aunt May's Death in ASM 400.

While, yes, it takes away a fundamental relationship in the series, DeMatteis did it so well that I did not like seeing it undone.

Also, since Marvel had published a "death of Aunt May" story previously(AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 195-200), it kind of makes me feel now that I cannot trust them if they ever do a "real" death of Aunt May story.

Yes, I know none of these stories "really" happened.

Matt Reed wrote: Yeah, I've got a problem with the attitude of "I'll be dead by that time, so it won't matter to me!"

Ummm... that was a joke...

QUOTE: We've had this discussion ad nauseam,

Emphasis on the "nausea" right? :-)

Well, you've heard most of this before but for the benefit of the new readers...

QUOTE: but "aging" and "growing" mainstream superheroes aimed at an all-ages audience is just plain wrong.

Why?  The stories need to be kept an all ages level (no Max comics telling the story of Pete and MJ's honeymoon) of course but no reason the status quo can't be flexible.  Some people change things by reboots; others change by evolution.  It's all in the name of keeping the characters/concepts vital for a new generation. 

How well a job they do with the changes is another matter of course. 

QUOTE: Worse than that, it's incredibly selfish to me.

Selfishness works both ways and only the fan knows for sure whether they're being selfish or selfless.  Probably a combination of both in most cases.  It's selfless to want things to remain the same because future generations get to enjoy what you got to enjoy and it's selfish to want things to change because you're bored with the way things are.  On the other hand, it's selfish to want things to remain the same because "that's how they were when I first started reading" and it's selfless to want things to change so new generations get to be on the ground floor for new developments. 

If left as written fans of all decades would have been able to be there for a major development in Spider-Man's life - readers of the 60s got to see the early days; readers of the 70s got to see one of the biggest tragedies of his life; readers of the 80s got to see the marriage; readers of the 90s got to see the death of Aunt May and readers of the 00s got to see him reveal his secret id.  If you lock him in high school, only readers of the 60s get to see the pivotal stuff firsthand.  Maybe that would have been better; maybe locking the status quo would have gotten the book cancelled by #70.  Only the Watcher knows for sure.

QUOTE: No matter how fast or slow you do it, it's being done to satisfy a reader/writer's desire to make said character's life more relevant to them;  "I like reading about a Peter Parker who's having marriage problems because that's what I have!" "I like reading about a Peter Parker who's a 30-something because that's me!"

Can't speak to the writers, but as a reader I disagree.  Dead mother figure and marriage technically made Peter less relevant to where I was when they occured.  I see it more as wanting to do/read something "different" with the character.  Sometimes that leads to classic stories; other times it leads to train wrecks.

QUOTE: Create another title, explore an aged, married, teacher Peter Parker in a What If... world, or write a mini-series, but to make it the status quo in the most high profile of all Spider-Man books is a huge, massive mistake.

Based on what?  A lot of people didn't like it; a lot did.  From what I understand, sales went up when the marriage occured and the sales took a serious hit when they tried to undo it.  Wondering what sales would have been had they not done the marriage gets us back into hypotheticals.  In all the controversy over the potential split up you see some readers who are happy to see it gone at any cost and others who got attracted to the character in the first place because of it.

Honestly, I think the smartest thing they could have done was have Amazing with the marriage and then continue Untold Tales with Roger Stern (and other writers once Rog was done).  Win, win.  Ah well.

3 reasons why Spider-Man should not age past his early 20s:

 1. Spider-Man, more than perhaps any other character in superhero comics, has been as succesful as he is largely because of his built in capacity for readers to identify with him. Being younger than most mainstream heroes, Spider-Man held a special appeal to me, and I suspect for other young readers as well. Although comics might not be doing so well at attracting younger readers now, they must if the industry is to continue to survive into the future. Taking away Peter Parker's youth takes away one of his most important qualities.

 2. Another of Spider-Man's biggest advantages as a character has been the fact that readers can identify with the fact that he has realistic problems (money, girls, worrying about Aunt May, school, etc. )    Making him 30, married to a supermodel, and succesful takes away a lot of this appeal. But, making him 30 and keeping the problems with money, girls, etc makes it worse in some ways, since a 30 year old with constant financial and romantic troubles is a different type of character than a 15-20 year old with the same problems. A teenager with these problems is going through the process of growing up. A 30 year old with these problems requires a different kind of storytelling, and the juggling of school,work and the rest looses its impact. Its better to keep him young, at an age when his problems can be portrayed more effectively.

 3. What about everybody else? Aunt May was portrayed as a frail old woman during Lee and Ditko's run. If we assume that Peter has aged 15 years since becoming Spider-Man, how old does that makes Aunt May now? 80? 85? And if we extend that idea into the interconnected Marvel universe, does that mean that Captain America is physically 40? Is Reed Richards 50? Is Doctor Strange nearly a senior citizen?